Category Archives: Standards of review

D.N.M.: DEA’s failure to make a detailed inventory in violation of policy doesn’t require exclusion of evidence

The DEA’s failure to make a detailed inventory is not grounds to suppress the inventory, citing cases from other circuits. United States v. Veale, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88011 (D.N.M. May 15, 2024). Sometimes clients are their own worst enemy … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Exclusionary rule, Inventory, Probable cause, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Standards of review | Comments Off on D.N.M.: DEA’s failure to make a detailed inventory in violation of policy doesn’t require exclusion of evidence

IA: Court ordered privilege review of search was at its expense

When the court orders privilege review for the results of a search, it’s a court expense. State v. Iowa District Court for Emmet County, 2024 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 52 (May 10, 2024). “Lenhart does not assert fraud on the court, … Continue reading

Posted in Prison and jail searches, Privileges, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Standards of review | Comments Off on IA: Court ordered privilege review of search was at its expense

D.Kan.: Preservation request under SCA isn’t a search or seizure

A preservation request under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(f) for defendant’s Snapchat account isn’t an unreasonable search or seizure. Even if, “suppression would not be warranted because the FBI acted in good faith reliance on the Stored Communications Act. As a … Continue reading

Posted in Private search, Social media warrants, Standards of review, Voluntariness | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Preservation request under SCA isn’t a search or seizure

E.D.Wis.: SW for cell phones allowed seizure of others found on premises

In this cell phone search warrant case, the government could seize multiple cell phones found at defendant’s house, old phones and others not named when they were found. Old phones and other phones could also have evidence on them. United … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review | Comments Off on E.D.Wis.: SW for cell phones allowed seizure of others found on premises

MO: No duty of care owed by police to fleeing motorist

There was no duty owed to a fleeing motorist who killed himself and his passenger in flight. The police owed a duty to the rest of the locale to stop them. This was reasonable under Scott. Neil v. St. Louis … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review | Comments Off on MO: No duty of care owed by police to fleeing motorist

W.D.N.C.: Alleged distinction between smell of MJ and hemp not material here

The distinction between the smell of legal hemp and illegal marijuana wasn’t material where the officer testified he smelled marijuana. United States v. Harris, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164723 (W.D.N.C. Sep. 14, 2023).* Defendant was speeding. The stop produced a … Continue reading

Posted in Inevitable discovery, Plain view, feel, smell, Standards of review | Comments Off on W.D.N.C.: Alleged distinction between smell of MJ and hemp not material here

CA8: Motion to suppress via motion for judgment of acquittal results in plain error review

Defendant’s motion to suppress was made as a motion for judgment of acquittal, so it was subject to plain error review, which it was not. United States v. Thornton, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20109 (8th Cir. Aug. 4, 2023). “The … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Pretext, Reasonableness, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA8: Motion to suppress via motion for judgment of acquittal results in plain error review

E.D.Tenn.: Undated controlled buys had to be in five weeks before SW, and that’s not stale

The multiple controlled buys were undated in the search warrant application, but the common sense reading was that they were in the five weeks before the warrant issued. That shows an ongoing drug operation, and it’s not stale. United States … Continue reading

Posted in Collective knowledge, Emergency / exigency, Ineffective assistance, Staleness, Standards of review | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: Undated controlled buys had to be in five weeks before SW, and that’s not stale

N.D.Ga.: Failure to specify how the R&R was deficient on PC finding was waiver

“The Eleventh Circuit has made clear that a party must ‘pinpoint those portions of the magistrate’s report that the district court must specially consider.’ Schultz, 565 F.3d at 1361. Defendant has not done so here. In sum, Defendant’s one-sentence statement … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Standards of review | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Failure to specify how the R&R was deficient on PC finding was waiver

CA10: Overlong stop didn’t cause independent search incident

Defendant was subjected to a search incident for false identification. His overlong stop otherwise didn’t cause that. United States v. Anderson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 5997 (10th Cir. Mar. 14, 2023).* “Teixeira struggles to throw shade on the reliability of … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Independent source, Search incident, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA10: Overlong stop didn’t cause independent search incident

CA7: Target of SW doesn’t have to be suspected of crime

A target of a search warrant does not have to be suspected of a crime. A holder of “mere evidence” can be subjected to a search warrant. United States v. Roland, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 4987 (7th Cir. Mar. 1, … Continue reading

Posted in Standards of review, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on CA7: Target of SW doesn’t have to be suspected of crime

IN: Fundamental (plain) error of S&S claims requires the evidence be fabricated, not just unconstitutionally obtained

The fundamental error avenue to appeal an unobjected to search and seizure claim requires a showing that the evidence was all fabricated, not just that the search was bad. Evidence obtained by search and seizure is usually highly relevant to … Continue reading

Posted in Standards of review, Waiver | Comments Off on IN: Fundamental (plain) error of S&S claims requires the evidence be fabricated, not just unconstitutionally obtained

NY1: When state doesn’t challenge standing, it’s taken as conceded

When the state doesn’t challenge standing, it’s taken as conceded. The trial court thus erred in deciding standing. People v. Bonilla, 2022 NY Slip Op 07304, 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7136 (1st Dept. Dec. 22, 2022). Defendant had his … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Issue preclusion, Probable cause, Standards of review | Comments Off on NY1: When state doesn’t challenge standing, it’s taken as conceded

AK: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to DV civil proceeding

The exclusionary rule does not apply in Domestic Violence Protective Order proceeding. Green v. State, 2022 Alas. LEXIS 140 (Dec. 14, 2022) (due process claim). Multiple calls between the CI and defendant arranging a fentanyl deal and defendant showing up … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probable cause, Standards of review | Comments Off on AK: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to DV civil proceeding

CA5: Dog sniff of the person at the border does not require RS

A dog sniff of defendant’s person at the border did not require reasonable suspicion. United States v. Tenorio, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 33978 (5th Cir. Dec. 9, 2022). The credibility determinations on whether defendant was subjected to arrest or not … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA5: Dog sniff of the person at the border does not require RS

GA: Consent to search backpack included laptop inside when def didn’t object

Defendant clearly consented to a search of his backpack. When the officer encountered his laptop and opened it to turn it on, defendant never objected. Winslow v. State, 2022 Ga. LEXIS 297 (Nov. 2, 2022). The underlying facts for reasonable … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Computer and cloud searches, Consent, Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review | Comments Off on GA: Consent to search backpack included laptop inside when def didn’t object

D.Neb.: Affidavits for SWs are judged by what they contain, not what they lack

Affidavits for search warrants are judged by what they contain, not what they lack. United States v. Cass, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195502 (D. Neb. Sep. 30, 2022), adopted, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197043 (D.Neb. Oct. 26, 2022). It was … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Excessive force, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review | Comments Off on D.Neb.: Affidavits for SWs are judged by what they contain, not what they lack

SC: Request for consent with “do you mind” met with “I do but …” not voluntary. Also no RS for continuing stop.

“Here, even after accepting the trial court’s factual findings as we must do since they are supported by some evidence, we conclude that Hall lacked reasonable suspicion as a matter of law pursuant to de novo review.” As to consent, … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review | Comments Off on SC: Request for consent with “do you mind” met with “I do but …” not voluntary. Also no RS for continuing stop.

CA9: PC determination in underlying criminal case precludes review in later § 1983 case

Plaintiff’s probable cause determination in his underlying criminal case was given preclusive effect in his later § 1983 case. Wilcox v. City of L.A., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 24350 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2022). Plaintiff overcame qualified immunity. “Under Louisiana … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Good faith exception, Issue preclusion, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA9: PC determination in underlying criminal case precludes review in later § 1983 case

PA: Hot pursuit justified officer crossing jurisdictional lines

Hot pursuit justified an officer in one jurisdiction following defendants into another one after a robbery report on their car. Commonwealth v. Hobel, 2022 PA Super 86, 2022 Pa. Super. LEXIS 202 (May 10, 2022) (decided under state statute). “A … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Standards of review | Comments Off on PA: Hot pursuit justified officer crossing jurisdictional lines